Here’s a nominative determinism flavored hypothesis: I believe that people with uncommon names are likelier to develop uncommon identities.Ā
Not all uncommon people have uncommon names, but I believe that people with uncommon names are likelier than not to develop in uncommon ways.
To be clear that by “uncommon” I don’t mean “good”. It could just as easily be “uncommonly bad”. In fact, that’s actually probably the likelier outcome, because, super broadly, it’s harder to be good than bad
I get that “everyone is unique” (we have different fingerprints, for example) ā but I’m not convinced that people are uniformly unique. Take entrepreneurs: I talk to a lot of them, and I’ve found that they are uncommon and distinct from ‘everyday folks’.
I get that “everyday folks” is itself a sort of modern construction, a function of the fact that everybody gets put through this homogenized system of schooling, of thinking, of mainstream media and culture. But even in a classroom some students are uncommon, unruly, deviant
Uncommon people climb mountains, commit mass shootings, write novels, become doctors without borders, start cults. I think people get confused discussing this because of negative associations with words like “commonplace” and positive associations with words like “extraordinary”.
Several folks have made the observation that “common” and “uncommon” are relative and context-dependent. This is absolutely correct. A John Smith would be extremely uncommon in a classroom in Singapore. According to my hypothesis, this would make a Singaporean John Smith develop in uncommon ways.